They can notify the hosting company that the server is violating UK law, the registrars, and payment services. This is the fear for sites not hosted in the UK. There are inter-country agreements to support civil actions.
I highly doubt the US government would look fondly on a US-based service taking down a US-based social media site because Ofcom complained to them about them not adhering to local laws. Especially under this administration. It would be seen as foreign interference. And for that reason, I very much doubt Ofcom would ever do that. They’d just block the site violating OSA.
They can notify the hosting company that the server is violating UK law, the registrars, and payment services. This is the fear for sites not hosted in the UK. There are inter-country agreements to support civil actions.
Doesn’t that sort of thing take quite a bit of time though? And they need to find out about it too.
That said I don’t know if the free and open internet has much time left.
If the surface web gets bad enough, there is still the dark web.
Maybe it’s too tinfoil hat but I worry they will push for a whitelisted internet at some point.
I highly doubt the US government would look fondly on a US-based service taking down a US-based social media site because Ofcom complained to them about them not adhering to local laws. Especially under this administration. It would be seen as foreign interference. And for that reason, I very much doubt Ofcom would ever do that. They’d just block the site violating OSA.
Quite a few have suggested the OSA is intended to further centralise the internet. Looking at the impact so far and they are not wrong…
What do you mean “centralise”? Into larger websites?
Big companies can follow the vast regulations while small ones are pushed out.